User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 3:07:48 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 3:27:25 PM EDT
[#1]
In for cliff notes.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 3:33:07 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By panzersergeant: In for cliff notes. If anyone is in possession of even one part of a solvent trap, i.e. cup/end cap/tube, you must contact the ATF for direction on what to do. Letter even states you are unable to form 1 a solvent trap as the manufacturer of the trap should only transfer said trap as a silencer therefore you can not form 1 it. |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 3:33:50 PM EDT
[#3]
Just curious.
Is the cited "act of congress" actual law defining parts as silencers or is it just more implied administrative power granted to the ATF to interpret or make things up out of thin air? |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 3:49:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Millennial]
[#4]
TL;DR
Some solvent traps are suppressors even in the unfinished state. We’re not going to give you any comprehensive defining set of features that makes something called a solvent trap a silencer… we’ll know it when we see it. Furthermore, you can’t use a solvent trap that we determined is actually a suppressor to create or register a suppressor pursuant to the NFA. An interesting excerpt: … For example, a silencer end cap falls under the federal definition of a “firearm silencer or firearm muffler” at 18 U.S.C.§ 924(a)(25) and therefore it is regulated as a silencer under the GCA and NFA even when the silencer end cap is individually sold and transferred and not installed as a component part of a silencer… |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 3:57:13 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By uglygun: Just curious. Is the cited "act of congress" actual law defining parts as silencers or is it just more implied administrative power granted to the ATF to interpret or make things up out of thin air? It’s the executive branch’s (ie: ATF) job to implement the laws written by congress. Part of implementing a law is determining (ie: interpreting) what the legislation encompasses. It’s within the executive branches enumerated power to do. If the interpretation oversteps the letter of the law or constitutional protections or contradicts other laws… then that’s what the judicial branch is for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 4:12:37 PM EDT
[#6]
This is not legal advice....FTATF
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 4:16:30 PM EDT
[#7]
Purely hypothetical but say someone owned a silencer (solvent trap) but it was form 1'd and accepted and stamped would this person be concerned?
what if your Grandmas sewing kit had a thimble in it and the thimble resembles a "cup" for a silencer, would you be in trouble with the ATF? |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 4:21:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: It’s the executive branch’s (ie: ATF) job to implement the laws written by congress. Part of implementing a law is determining (ie: interpreting) what the legislation encompasses. It’s within the executive branches enumerated power to do. If the interpretation oversteps the letter of the law or constitutional protections or contradicts other laws… then that’s what the judicial branch is for. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: Originally Posted By uglygun: Just curious. Is the cited "act of congress" actual law defining parts as silencers or is it just more implied administrative power granted to the ATF to interpret or make things up out of thin air? It’s the executive branch’s (ie: ATF) job to implement the laws written by congress. Part of implementing a law is determining (ie: interpreting) what the legislation encompasses. It’s within the executive branches enumerated power to do. If the interpretation oversteps the letter of the law or constitutional protections or contradicts other laws… then that’s what the judicial branch is for. I hope this post gets reported, investigated, and you get charged with child pornography. And as you're being dragged away in handcuffs, claiming that this post has nothing to do with child pornography, I hope someone explains to you that the FBI has interpreted the child pornography statutes to include internet posts about enumerated powers of the branches of government, and that you are welcome to appeal your impending conviction to the Supreme Court if you feel differently. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 4:31:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: uglygun]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: It’s the executive branch’s (ie: ATF) job to implement the laws written by congress. Part of implementing a law is determining (ie: interpreting) what the legislation encompasses. It’s within the executive branches enumerated power to do. If the interpretation oversteps the letter of the law or constitutional protections or contradicts other laws… then that’s what the judicial branch is for. That's nice... Now explain to me whether this is a unique situation as it applies to end caps/baffles or is it just another actual "cockfag" moment with them pulling the same shit as they did with pistol braces or fucking bump stocks. You can consider your above response entirely null and void now that I have added context to my original question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 4:35:11 PM EDT
[#10]
 ATF Condemns Solvent Trap Suppressor In New Letter - What the Case Law Tells Us |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 4:42:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: _DR]
[#11]
I thought this was all decided like 15 years ago?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 5:01:49 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By panzersergeant: In for cliff notes. Anything “intended for use” is illegal. Making laws again. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 5:24:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Millennial]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By uglygun: That's nice... Now explain to me whether this is a unique situation as it applies to end caps/baffles or is it just another actual "cockfag" moment with them pulling the same shit as they did with pistol braces or fucking bump stocks. You can consider your above response entirely null and void now that I have added context to my original question. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By uglygun: Originally Posted By Millennial: It’s the executive branch’s (ie: ATF) job to implement the laws written by congress. Part of implementing a law is determining (ie: interpreting) what the legislation encompasses. It’s within the executive branches enumerated power to do. If the interpretation oversteps the letter of the law or constitutional protections or contradicts other laws… then that’s what the judicial branch is for. That's nice... Now explain to me whether this is a unique situation as it applies to end caps/baffles or is it just another actual "cockfag" moment with them pulling the same shit as they did with pistol braces or fucking bump stocks. You can consider your above response entirely null and void now that I have added context to my original question. So concerning endcaps and baffles, it isn’t some thread or mount adapter we’re talking about … If you don’t think the endcap of a silencer assembly (essentially the last restrictive aperture in the baffle stack and a component that has a measurable effect on suppression and backpressure) isn’t a functional part of the suppressor… I’m not sure what to tell you. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 5:34:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: uglygun]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: I don’t think the atf has been ambiguous about spare suppressor parts or flip-flopped in the past two decades; they’ve pretty consistently stated that spare/extra/replacement components of suppressors are to be treated themselves as suppressors and pretty consistently pursued and shut down companies making what they say are spare parts So concerning endcaps and baffles, it isn’t some thread or mount adapter we’re talking about … If you don’t think the endcap of a silencer assembly (essentially the last restrictive aperture in the baffle stack and a component that has a measurable effect on suppression and backpressure) isn’t a functional part of the suppressor… I’m not sure what to tell you. That was the game the solvent trap dudes seemed to be playing with regards to "well it doesnt have an end cap." I am familiar with how wipe type suppressors came to an end and I can see the logical progression towards arguing that a baffle part is akin to a complete replacement wipe stack/cartridge. But the fight may need finally be had at just what point does the ATF get to rule things as a suppressor. Examples such as assholes showing up to a house over a person ording a goddamn inline fuel filter need to never happen again regardless of if some shithead turned it into a suppressor. No different than the 80% fight or some of the other fights where their administrative power needs to be questioned. If anything doing it now before a change in the court should occur. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 6:15:01 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tedm1969: Purely hypothetical but say someone owned a silencer (solvent trap) but it was form 1'd and accepted and stamped would this person be concerned? what if your Grandmas sewing kit had a thimble in it and the thimble resembles a "cup" for a silencer, would you be in trouble with the ATF? This all happened because of that fuck that ran Diversified Machine. He was sending suppressors to some other guy to test his designs for some reason. They took both of them and a DM employee to court and shut them down hard. There was a big thread on it. I got a FEDEX letter in the mail a couple years ago from the ATF stating I needed to turn in all parts purchased from Diversified Machine. I called my local ATF office and the main guy stated, if you did these on a legit Form 1 and are approved you have nothing to worry about. He actually put it in an email for me so I could print it out and have a paper trail of the conversation. That paperwork still sits right next to me on my desk for the, "just in case" portion of my brain. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 6:51:18 PM EDT
[#16]
What ATF is saying (now) is that those "solvent traps" were actually suppressors and should have been transferred on a Form 4. Watch the video above. It's about as good and coherent an explanation for ATF's latest flip-flop.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 7:04:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FDC]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Nobody69s: This all happened because of that fuck that ran Diversified Machine. He was sending suppressors to some other guy to test his designs for some reason. They took both of them and a DM employee to court and shut them down hard. There was a big thread on it. +1 Some docs from that thread.: The first few pages edit, hid in spoiler as it was too much for mine and maybe other's slow connection Click To View Spoiler |
|
|
|
WV, USA
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 7:36:47 PM EDT
[#18]
Before long we will need a tax stamp.to buy a damn fuel filter for an oil change
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 8:00:40 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Oldgold: Anything "intended for use" is illegal. Making laws again. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 8:56:21 PM EDT
[#20]
13 months to get approval to buy an oil filter to put car.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 11:21:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Fucking Republicans had the White House and both houses of Congress, and failed to pass the "Hearing Protection Act" that would have ended all this insanity. Assholes. Not on nearly the same level as libtard Democrat assholes, but still weak, useless assholes.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 11:24:29 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryDNW - 13.5 minutes to say about 2 minutes of actual stuff |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 11/29/2023 2:16:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: erichard]
[#23]
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 11/29/2023 2:28:32 AM EDT
[#24]
Letter is pretty vague. IMHO it just establishes a more sweeping version of the BATFE's existing spite for silencer-esque devices.
They were already going after solvent traps for years now, you know? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2023 5:23:17 AM EDT
[#25]
I'm not saying this isn't a bullshit over reach and I'm no fan of the AFT but, is anyone really surprised? Their goal is to make it hard for the common folk to own such things and anything that makes it easier or more economical is certainly a target. I think the only thing that is really new here is the demand that you turn in your parts. While not a new practice in general, new for these parts.
As I've always held to, I don't run a can as I refuse to pay for permission to buy an overpriced steel tube that's priced such simply because of the permission required to create it. The cost vs benefit isn't there for me, even if I could DIY one with a stamp, the stamp alone represents a freedom tax and I won't pay it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2023 7:55:11 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By _DR: I thought this was all decided like 15 years ago? Nothing is ever final with ATF. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2023 6:46:03 PM EDT
[#27]
After a reread and a head scratch, I considered this...
"Both the GCA and NFA regulate “firearm silencers.” The term “firearm muffler or firearm silencer” is defined under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25) and 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(7) as— any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. So, based on this verbiage, if I buy a 1 1/2" steel round to make a suppressor and THEN send the AFT a form 1, even though I have taken no further steps to produce a supressor, I have an illegal suppressor because I have a part intended for fabrication as evidenced by my form 1.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2023 7:26:49 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Homesteader375: After a reread and a head scratch, I considered this... "Both the GCA and NFA regulate "firearm silencers." The term "firearm muffler or firearm silencer" is defined under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(25) and 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(7) as any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. So, based on this verbiage, if I buy a 1 1/2" steel round to make a suppressor and THEN send the AFT a form 1, even though I have taken no further steps to produce a supressor, I have an illegal suppressor because I have a part intended for fabrication as evidenced by my form 1. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/UpWDM7X-732.jpg 1) We've already had this argument. The consensus was not to purchase anything until the F1 was approved. Just submit drawings/schematics. 2) A round bar can be used for many things, not just a suppressor. ATF's argument that solvent traps are "only" used for suppressors is that there is an index mark on the end cap for converting it to a suppressor and the people buying solvent traps, uniformly were submitting F1s to make them suppressors. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2023 8:22:56 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tortilla-flats: What ATF is saying (now) is that those "solvent traps" were actually suppressors and should have been transferred on a Form 4. Watch the video above. It's about as good and coherent an explanation for ATF's latest flip-flop. Same game as braces, bump stocks, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2023 5:07:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Homesteader375]
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tortilla-flats: 2 things.... 1) We've already had this argument. The consensus was not to purchase anything until the F1 was approved. Just submit drawings/schematics. 2) A round bar can be used for many things, not just a suppressor. ATF's argument that solvent traps are "only" used for suppressors is that there is an index mark on the end cap for converting it to a suppressor and the people buying solvent traps, uniformly were submitting F1s to make them suppressors. I wasn't involved in any previous "argument" regarding the topic and I get what they're trying to do regarding solvent traps. That said, they're interpreting things in such a way that they've essentially rendered all items, however innocuous, that could be used in fabrication as already being suppressors by constructive intent, simply by filing a form 1. What is the difference, really, between buying a kit that hasn't been completed and complete fabrication? It's the time, energy, and expertise required to complete it. In the AFTs mind, making it hard or expensive is a deterrent and their goal must be to deprive us. What else could it be? Why would they not use this verbiage to prosecute people who have raw materials on hand? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2023 6:00:59 AM EDT
[#31]
ATF quotes the actual law, and then literally says it says something it doesn’t say.
Both the GCA and NFA regulate “firearm silencers.” The term “firearm muffler or firearm silencer” is defined under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25) and 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(7) as— any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. Some of the devices commonly marketed as solvent traps have been determined to meet the definition of “firearm silencer” because they have the objective design features and characteristics indicating that the device is “for” reducing the report of a portable firearm. Although solvent traps are generally marketed as having an intended use other than as a silencer, e.g., filtering firearm cleaning solvent, that is not determinative under the statute. ATF must consider a device’s objective design features, including the uses of which a part is capable, as part of the inquiry into whether the device is a silencer. See, e.g., Sig Sauer v. Brandon, 826 F.3d 598 (1st Cir. 2016). The word “and”, “and intended ONLY for use in such assembly or fabrication.” The solvent trap by definition is the intended use and if it can be used as a silencer part is by definition NOT intended ONLY for use in such assembly ( of a silencer) Once again, the ATF is quoting law and then comp,Evelyn disregarding what the words mean that they just quoted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2023 8:18:07 AM EDT
[#32]
Using AFTs current techniques of interrogating credit card data and search engine history for RAS to confront people over "illegal suppressors" I would not be surprised to see someone questioned for purchasing this:
 Attached FileIt's happened over diesel fuel filters. |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 12/9/2023 10:44:49 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: TL;DR Some solvent traps are suppressors even in the unfinished state. We’re not going to give you any comprehensive defining set of features that makes something called a solvent trap a silencer… we’ll know it when we see it. Furthermore, you can’t use a solvent trap that we determined is actually a suppressor to create or register a suppressor pursuant to the NFA. An interesting excerpt: Translation: Surprise cockfags! All your extra endcaps you supposedly bought legally for use on your multi-caliber silencers are illegal/unregistered suppressors. Some of the extremes are kind of common sense. The plastic tubes are obviously not going to be considered silencers. On the other hand, did you look at the picture on the letter? That one, and similar ones are obviously meant to be silencers. Why else would you have a "solvent trap," that has cups or baffles? The other one that is pretty obvious is the one that is meant to have an oil filter screwed onto it. It's pretty obvious what the intent was. It's that blatantly obvious with any of them really or they would just be clear plastic tubes that clip over the barrel to catch the patch and any dripping solvent or oil. I'm surprised it took at long as it did for them to catch someone's attention. If people would have just shut the hell up instead of having to make their cool videos for likes it might have slipped by for at least a few more years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2023 10:43:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: rollpin]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Unicorn: Some of the extremes are kind of common sense. The plastic tubes are obviously not going to be considered silencers. On the other hand, did you look at the picture on the letter? That one, and similar ones are obviously meant to be silencers. Why else would you have a "solvent trap," that has cups or baffles? The other one that is pretty obvious is the one that is meant to have an oil filter screwed onto it. It's pretty obvious what the intent was. It's that blatantly obvious with any of them really or they would just be clear plastic tubes that clip over the barrel to catch the patch and any dripping solvent or oil. I'm surprised it took at long as it did for them to catch someone's attention. If people would have just shut the hell up instead of having to make their cool videos for likes it might have slipped by for at least a few more years. Ok, but even under this interpretation something that is JUST a tube and JUST an undrilled end cap would be considered a suppressor despite perfectly functioning as a legitimate solvent trap. If the manufacturer didn't even SEND the baffles until they received a Form 1 completed from the customer and approved by the FATF, FATF current interpretation is a tube itself is a suppressor, which is completely absurd. Or if the manufacturer didn't even send an incomplete, unfunctional set of parts until they received a Form 1, etc., then the ATF still considers individual parts suppressors anyway which must be transferred on a Form 4. No one, not even God Himself if adhering to the laws of physics, screw on one of those traps w/ ALL parts in an unfinished config and make a suppressor. They could destroy their barrel and a few hundred dollars worth of steel or aluminum, but that's it. So where does the madness of "make" end? Is a cylinder of steel or aluminum or titanium a suppressor because the person didn't lathe down a rectangular block of it? It's dumb. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2023 9:21:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Yeah, that whole thing with vendors selling "Solvent Traps" at gun shows always seemed incredibly sketchy, the online ones even more so.
It is way easier for ATF agents to trap some dimwit into doing something than put in the fieldwork to get an actual bad guy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2023 9:40:27 PM EDT
[#36]
Just wait until they decide that a threaded barrel is also part of the silencer. If you intend to attach it to a silencer it's a silencer. Science.
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
